If I'm really the only person who has trouble with translations, then I won't mind if we remove all references to "translations are not covered" from the guidelines and report and put the simple examples we had earlier back in.  If this is a nonissue for most people we shouldn't complicate our report by making it one.

Robert.

Fletcher, Peter wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
Yes #402662369 is how I supposed things would normally be done ...

We may get feedback from SCS, I don't know, but they may not understand
our trouble with translations. We'll see. 

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Robert Rendall
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 2:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion

Yes, as I said earlier, not everything with a Russian or Arabic 
corporate body in a 710 is necessarily a translation from Russian or 
Arabic.  Or see for example the 610 in OCLC #53475867.  But if we've 
decided that the preferred practice is to enter all headings in the 
language of the body, person, or title, and the Hebrew practice that 
made sense to me is exceptional, then not even translations are a 
problem any more.  After all, I just found OCLC #402662369, and that's a

PCC record created right here at Columbia.

Robert.

D. Brooking wrote:
  
I am not sure if this makes a difference at this point or not, but the
    

  
assumption that if we have eliminated translations, we have eliminated
    

  
this issue is not true.

For example, a work that is originally in Russian, but two of the 
editors are Ukrainian and their names are set up in Ukrainian 
(romanized). You need to choose the *Ukrainian* macro to get the 
correct Cyrillic, not the Russian. There may be many reasons the 
authorized form of a name does not match the language of the resource 
itself. The problem is much more frequent with translations, but by no
    

  
means unknown for non-translations.

We still may not want to figure out the solution to this, but we need 
to be aware that it's not just translations vs. non-translations.



************
Diana Brooking             (206) 685-0389
Cataloging Librarian       (206) 685-8782 fax
Suzzallo Library           [log in to unmask]
University of Washington
Box 352900
Seattle WA  98195-2900

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Fletcher, Peter wrote:

    
Ok, sorry about the miscommunication. I think I want to convey that
      
the
  
script must be that of the heading, as opposed to the resource being
cataloged in 2.5.2.1, but now since we have eliminated translations
      
it
  
is a moot point since there is only one language involved and the
language of the headings is the same as the resource being cataloged.

So, I think your point is well taken for 2.5.2.2.

And the wording in 2.5.2.1 can stay as:

"The headings must be in the language/script of the body, person, or
title, and the form entered can be derived from the resource itself
      
or
  
if necessary from a standard reference source in the language/script
      
of
  
the heading."

I suppose there are occasions where we can over think a problem.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of David W Reser
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:25 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion

Peter--  I was only actually complaining about the wording about
qualifiers (2.5.2.2), didn't really have a problem with 2.5.2.1 (the
same may not be true of other commenters).

As for 2.5.2.1, I could live with what was there, or live with
      
removing
  
the second sentence, but I don't think the replacement text "**The
language/script used must be the one associated with the heading.** "
actually says anything, or at least could be open to many
interpretations.

Sorry not to be clearer earlier.
Dave


      
"Fletcher, Peter" <[log in to unmask]> 3/24/2010 3:05 PM
            
Sorry, I should have pointed out where these texts come from in the
      
doc.
  
You are right about the location of the qualifiers example, the other
part comes from 2.5.2.1.

With your suggestion 2.5.2.1 would read:

"Non-Latin data may be supplied in parallel fields for headings
established in non-standard romanization or in a conventional
Latin-script form. When possible, prefer a non-Latin form that
corresponds most closely to the authorized Latin form."

What about:

"Non-Latin data may be supplied in parallel fields for headings
established in non-standard romanization or in a conventional
Latin-script form. **The language/script used must be the one
      
associated
  
with the heading.** Prefer a non-Latin form that corresponds most
closely to the authorized Latin form."


and at 2.5.2.2 it could be left as David suggests:

"In non-Latin parallel fields, cataloger-created qualifiers may be
entered in a non-Latin form. When possible, prefer a non-Latin form
      
that
  
corresponds most closely to the authorized Latin form of the
      
qualifier."
  
Peter


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of David W Reser
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 6:15 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion

So, if we are having too much difficulty trying to put parameters on
what qualifiers should look like in an optional approach (correct me
      
if
  
I'm wrong that we're talking about 2.5.2.2. here), maybe we should
      
just
  
omit the statement "The qualifiers must be in the language/script of
      
the
  
heading itself, and the form entered can be derived from the
      
resource,
  
or if necessary from a standard reference source in the
      
language/script
  
of the heading."  The point of the option was that you could use
non-Latin qualifiers in the optional approach (which the first
      
sentence
  
already says).  Leave it at that?

Dave

      
"Fletcher, Peter" <[log in to unmask]> 3/23/2010 7:28 PM
            
No kidding.

I think the problem with the statements:

The headings must be in the language/script of the body,
person, or title [...] and:

In non-Latin parallel fields, cataloger-created qualifiers may be
 entered in a non-Latin form.  The qualifiers must be in the
 language/script of the body, person, or title [...]

is that what I meant to say is the language of the "heading" itself,
which can be a body, person, or title (730, 240, 130). Would it be
clearer to say "headings must be in the language of the heading
      
itself"?
  
This way you don't get confused about whether or not the script is
      
taken
  
from the piece at hand.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Robert Rendall
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 2:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion

Well, at least my assertion that "nobody does this" was wrong!  I was
waiting for someone to contradict me...

I'm happy to start thinking in terms of wrapping up now rather than
raising any more problems!  It's been a long ride.

R.

D. Brooking wrote:
      
Well, this is just one library's practice in some of its non-Latin
units. So I wouldn't say you are "wrong."

Part of the problem with these guidelines is that it is up to *us*
        
to
  
suggest what is wrong and right now. But I think no one is up for
diverging too much from what is current practice, given the
uncertainties that we've already discussed in many places. But even
determining what is current practice is not straighforward at all!




************
Diana Brooking             (206) 685-0389
Cataloging Librarian       (206) 685-8782 fax
Suzzallo Library           [log in to unmask]
University of Washington
Box 352900
Seattle WA  98195-2900

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Robert Rendall wrote:

        
If you get Arabic colleagues to supply Arabic-script parallel
          
fields
  
for your Cyrillic records, then I'm wrong and the text is fine as
          
it
  
is!  I'm happy to let the issue rest.

Robert.

D. Brooking wrote:
          
Robert said, "I think I would summarize current practice as: if a
non-Latin parallel heading is entered, the heading/qualifiers must
normally be in the script of the title being cataloged."

I think this is why I didn't understand the issue. Because it's
            
not
  
our current practice. Actually, our practice here for Cyrillic
anyway is to always supply the non-latin parallel heading in the
language/script of the heading entity itself. That's why we supply
nothing for English or Czech name headings in a record. And why we
supply Bulgarian for a Bulgarian name, even if the title being
cataloged is in Russian or French.

But if we have a Hebrew name or an Arabic name heading in a record
for a title in Russian or Serbian, then the Cyrillic catalogers
usually don't supply a parallel heading at all! (Because we are
clueless in Hebrew and Arabic.) But there are those instances
            
where
  
we get a colleague to supply what's necessary if we think it is
            
vital.
      
(I don't know what our CJK catalogers are up to, though, they have
            
a
  
completely separate shop...)

So to make a long story short, I would be comfortable with the
language that's in there now, because it mirrors our current
practice here.


************
Diana Brooking             (206) 685-0389
Cataloging Librarian       (206) 685-8782 fax
Suzzallo Library           [log in to unmask]
University of Washington
Box 352900
Seattle WA  98195-2900

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Robert Rendall wrote:

            
See below.

D. Brooking wrote:
      See comments below,

      On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Robert Rendall wrote:

            Where are we now with that phrase "The headings must
              
be
  
in the language/script of the body, person, or title"?


      --> DB: I am sorry, I can't find this thread. Is it the
presence of the phrase (appears in several places) that is the
              
issue,
      
      or just the wording of the phrase? The wording does sound
awkward. What does RDA say? the "entity"???


The most recent draft says:

Non-Latin data may be supplied in parallel fields for headings
established in non-standard romanization or in a conventional
Latin-script
form.  The headings must be in the language/script of the body,
person, or title [...]
and:
In non-Latin parallel fields, cataloger-created qualifiers may be
entered in a non-Latin form.  The qualifiers must be in the
language/script of the body, person, or title [...]

That would cover:

1) entering Hebrew-script parallel fields for Israeli corporate
bodies appearing in Latin-script records for titles in English
(current
practice, at least occasionally or for some scripts)

and

2) entering Hebrew-script parallel fields for Israeli corporate
bodies appearing in Cyrillic-script records for titles in Russian
              
(not
      
current practice for any scripts, as far as I know)

I think I would summarize current practice as: if a non-Latin
parallel heading is entered, the heading/qualifiers must normally
be in the
script of the title being cataloged.  Except for bib. records for
Latin-script titles, where the authorized form is already in the
              
same
      
script at the title cataloged and takes care of the need for a
heading legible to the monolingual patron, so you can add a
              
parallel
      
heading in another script if you feel like it.  But I don't know
how much sense that makes as a general principle.

Robert.